Need some quick help on finding who said this...

unknown ^ | today | for-q-clinton

[for-q-clinton]

Need to know who said "Democracy is doomed to failure when the 51% of the population figures out they can take everything from the other 49%"? Or something like that.

thank you

[philman_36]

LOL, yeah, a high-school dropout is going to set me straight.
I've already told you I graduated. I'm not a high school drop out.
Why do you keep stooping? Are you just used to being bent over? (as in BOHICA)

[LibWhacker]

Because if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

Heck, lots of high schools that have no business even being accredited are graduating hundreds of thousands of illiterates every year.

[philman_36]

Because if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
Then judging by your comments and manner you're a liberal. You stamp your foot and demand you're right even in the face of overwhelming evidence against you. And, since you've got nothing to dispute that America is a Republic instead of a democracy as you proclaim, you actually think continually attacking me will somehow restore your repute instead of making you look petty.

Is impugning me supposed to make you right and me wrong?
Can't you come up with something more than a dictionary definition and character attacks to prove your point?

What a sad sack you truly are.

[LibWhacker]

Can't you come up with something more than a dictionary definition...

Oh, that's right! This is rocket science, something so unbelievably advanced that all the lexicographers in the entire world couldn't possibly get right. We're supposed to believe only a high school dropout could do that. Bow down before him, everybody.

This is why you're so poorly educated; you make fun of dictionaries instead of trying to learn something from them. You probably feel the same way about math and science books. Guys like you give conservatism a bad name. It's embarrassing. So just sit back, shut up, and listen and learn something.

This is a conservative site. You're not going to make friends accusing people of throwing around agitprop. And if you have any doubts, that's where the impugning began between you and me. As usual with you guys, you can dish it out but you can't take it.

*PLONK*

[philman_36]

So just sit back, shut up, and listen and learn something.
I've learned one thing and it is that you need to crack open something of more substance than a dictionary to learn what form of government America has. Did they give you a civics book for civics class or just a dictionary.

This is a conservative site.
Perhaps you need to reexamine the name of this site, Free REPUBLIC not Free Democracy, and reconsider this conversation.
You're not going to make friends accusing people of throwing around agitprop.
I'm not trying to make friends. You on the other hand, judging by that comment, live by the cult of personality. You would rather be popular than factually accurate.
But if a dictionary is the best that can be expected from you then 'here ya go'...republic
Pay special attention to the definitions given from...
the Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary
(a country with) a form of government in which there is no king or queen, the power of government, law-making etc being given to one or more elected representatives (eg a president, members of a parliament etc) Example: The United States is a republic — the United Kingdom is not.

...and The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy
A form of government in which power is explicitly vested in the people, who in turn exercise their power through elected representatives. Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed. Democracy implied direct rule by the people, all of whom were equal, whereas republic implied a system of government in which the will of the people was mediated by representatives, who might be wiser and better educated than the average person. In the early American republic, for example, the requirement that voters own property and the establishment of institutions such as the Electoral College were intended to cushion the government from the direct expression of the popular will.

As usual with you guys, you can dish it out but you can't take it.
Who is "you guys"? Do you believe you're conversing with more than one person? And as far as dishing anything out you've thrown nothing but snowballs while I've been throwing inside fastballs that have you backing out of the batter's box.

*PLONK*
That's the sound of yet another fastball hitting the mitt, while you play at being "The Mighty Casey".

[LibWhacker]

I've learned one thing and it is that you need to crack open something of more substance than a dictionary to learn what form of government America has.

THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH A DICTIONARY, YOU DMF!!!

Especially when the argument is about definitions, as this one is. Try looking up 'democracy' in any of those dictionaries you cited, and you'll see America satisfies the definition of democracy.

But go ahead, revel in your ignorance, Mr. "Oh, I was 39th in my GED class of 39 dummies." Be proud of your low IQ. I love it that you are. Heck, enroll in a good university while you're at it. I'd love to watch you fall flat on your face.

[philman_36]

THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH A DICTIONARY, YOU DMF!!!
I really got you riled up now! I must be doing something right.
I never said there was anything wrong with a dictionary. I like using them.
Especially when the argument is about definitions, as this one is.
"The argument" is about more than a definition. It figures that you don't understand that either.

The rest of your reply isn't even worth responding to.

[philman_36]

And since you like "easy" sites...some more information for you NOT found in a dictionary!
Democracy
The definition of democracy has been expanded, however, to describe a philosophy that insists on the right and the capacity of a people, acting either directly or through representatives, to control their institutions for their own purposes.

If you had any sense at all you would know that the expansion of the definition has been done to fool Americans into accepting quasi-socialism/eventual socialism under the banner of "democracy" and each time the term is used in any framework it further insulates Americans, to our detriment, from the true heritage the Founding Fathers left us.
BTA, that might be a little too much for a mental 'I'm stuck in a dictionary' midget such as yourself to comprehend.

[philman_36]

You're perfectly described here...
Who is Antonio Gramsci? You Better Learn!!!
The revolutionaries who wished to break the "hegemony" had to build up a "counter hegemony" to that of the ruling class. It was necessary to change the minds, to change the popular consensus, to change the way institutions work. In sum, to make the people question the right of their leaders to rule in the accepted way.
Success would consist in permeating throughout society a whole new system of values, beliefs and morality. A system that would become accepted by all in a way that would appear to be the normal thing to do.
How is it done? Besides the traditional intellectuals (those who see themselves as such) there must exist the "organic intellectual", i.e. the one that grows with a social group, and becomes its thinking and organizing element. The role of informal "educators" in local communities becomes essential. The educator must not be seen as a distant "brainy" figure but as "one of us", one of the neighborhood, another one of the group.
You do use the "you guys" expression to garner that "one of us", "I'm with the majority" sentiment.

Snip...It means: You must accept our values and not argue. [you said...So just sit back, shut up, and listen and learn something.] If you do not you are out the mainstream. [you said...You're not going to make friends accusing people of throwing around agitprop.]

You're straight out of a Gramsci playbook.

The only way to gain absolute power in the United States is through long range Gramscian tactics. [like changing the terms we use to describe our form of government] There is hope however, if we don t take for granted what we now enjoy and fight to maintain power divided. The true strength of the American Republic is the division of power. This is why the would be revolutionaries so hate the Electoral College, States Rights, local self government, etc. The system devised by the Founding Fathers complicates their life tremendously. As the quoted article notes:
"Over and above these structural features, there are the multiplicity of interests and interest groups, the immense diversity of American society and the excessive rhetoric that characterizes the conflict of those separated in fact by minor differences." Underlying it all, however, "is the sheer power of the idea of freedom an idea so powerful that not even those opposed to freedom condemn it . . . ."
Do you understand now that it's about much more than just a definition?

[BJungNan]

Post 4 is the best reference I’ve seen so far. You should use it.

[BJungNan]

Good reference quote. Good job.

[finch]

Considering the constant drum beat of the liberals about their personal liberty, I have found this to apply...

The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty.
Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865)

[finch]

This one is also one of my favorites......

Things may come to those who wait, but only the things left by those who hustle.
Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865)

[Congressman Billybob]

Doubtful that this is from Lincoln. I believe the word “hustle” is too modern for him.

John / Billybob

[LibWhacker]

Good reference quote.

That's what I thought, but I guess it's in dispute. Congressman Billybob corrected me in comment #50, above.

You can also read about it on Snopes.

A Google book search shows that it's been cited in dozens of published texts (going back to the 1950s, according to one). Inasmuch as many of these are textbooks in polysci, econ, business, law, etc., I don't feel too bad getting snookered by it. But I'll definitely try never to use it again!

*Sigh*...Can't wait until everything ever published is available online. Then we could track down something like this real fast.

[LibWhacker]

Oops, I also meant to include you in the the 'To:' line above (Comment #95).

[Congressman Billybob]

Thanks. I mess up on quotes occasionally. I'll be posting my latest column on FR in a few minutes. In the course of fact-checking this one, I discovered that I had been misquoting a famous couplet by the great Robert Burns, for about 30 years.

Available on the Internet, several places, is the alleged quote: "Ah what gift the gods would gi'e us, to see ourselves as others see us." Not only is the quote slightly wrong, it is not from the believed source, "To a Wee Beastie." The correct quote and the correct source are in my column, today.

The best rule is this: Never write a quote from memory. But if you do, don't trust your memory, and check it out.

John / Billybob

[Old Professer]

Those two guys in the middle probably have a lot of dates.

[BJungNan]

Still a good quote.